MovieChat Forums > Stalag 17 Discussion > The phony air raid: I see nothing! (Poss...

The phony air raid: I see nothing! (Possible spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by hobnob53
8 replies | jump to latest

Possible spoilers ahead.

A modest issue with the phony air raid the Germans stage, during which Price stays behind to demonstrate to Schultz the "time bomb" Dunbar had made to blow up the ammunition train.

It seems to me a number of characters failed to notice some pretty obvious things.

First, Price pushes Harry and the Animal out the door, then shuts it and goes over to Schultz, by the chessboard. But is it really likely Harry and the Animal wouldn't have noticed that Price didn't leave with them and wasn't right behind them? Even making for the trenches, it seems probable they'd have noticed his absence, espcially since they'd just been talking to him.

Second, Price leaves with Schultz a minute or so later, after showing him the matchbook trick. Now, it's not likely any other prisoners would have seen the two leaving together, as they were in the air raid trenches and, presumably, couldn't see the barracks door. Still, wasn't it some risk to have the two men leave together? Could Schultz and Price have been certain no one would see them? More of a problem is what happened when Price went to the trenches himself, as he must have done. Again, wouldn't some of the prisoners have noticed his sudden, late arrival? Mightn't this made them a little suspicious of Price?

Third, Sefton stays behind in the barracks to spy on Schultz and Price. It's not really clear why Sefton should have done this: he had at this time no reason to be suspicious of Price himself, nor any reason to assume that the air raids were being used as cover for communications between the spy and the guards, hence no reason to stay behind. However, leave this (potentially substantial) question aside for the moment. How is it that Price and Schultz didn't see that Sefton hadn't left? They were keeping a pretty close eye on getting everyone out. But leave this aside too. When the two Germans leave, the camera pans over to Sefton, standing just one bunk away from the exit. Is it credible that neither Price nor Schultz wouldn't see him, that close? It was dark, but not that dark. They wouldn't have noticed movement or breathing or something? And Sefton tops it off by lighting a cigar after they leave. No one outside saw the lit match or burning cigar end? No one (prisoners or guards) ever noticed that Sefton hadn't left the barracks?

Nothing major here, it can be all explained away or fudged, even if the point is stretched a bit, but it does seem that a lot of people in Stalag 17 that night may have had their eyes wide shut, if I may bring in a rival picture.

[–] jennbeez1 13 years ago

I thought the same thing about the cigar. Really stupid of him to light up seconds after Price and Schultz vacate the premises. Sefton is probably the only POW rich enough to have cigars, too. They would instantly associate the (awful) smell with Sefton- a guy they well know is trying harder than anyone else in the barracks to figure out who the spy is.

Sefton also took his cigar with its signature smell outside with him down the escape hatch- I think we have to overlook these obvious flaws in movie logic in the same way we forgive cartoon physics. It's still fun to see Wile E. Coyote get smashed flat as a pancake by a boulder. The cigar is a prop. To have him put it out before climbing down the escape hatch would detract from his crazy self-confident image.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Good points. What's amusing about this is that the opening narrative (by Cookie) refers to the titles of a couple of recent war pictures and says that there hasn't been a movie about POWs. (Actually, there had been at least one: Britain's excellent The Captive Heart in 1946, and POWs were at least shown, if not in POW camps as such, in wartime films.) Cookie's somewhat bitter lament seems to be a complaint about the unreal heroics of too many war films.

Yet Stalag 17 itself isn't all that realistic in many things -- not so much in the conditions depicted as in several of its plot elements and developments. It's pretty impossible to believe, for example, that Harry and the Animal wouldn't have been punished severely for their escapade in painting their way to the Russian women's showers; or (more seriously) that von Scherbach wouldn't have reacted with extreme severity toward the POWs after Price's death (since his shooting was clearly a set-up, especially after the Germans found all the stuff that had been tied onto him), not to mention his fury at Sefton's and especially Dunbar's escape. The film closes with the notion that the prisoners had gotten away clean with their plan and that nothing bad would result, a rather benign aftermath which is not at all credible or logical. In reality, the prisoners would have been severly punished, and some possibly even executed.

Another example of how Wilder made a vastly entertaining film many of whose aspects really don't stand close scrutiny.

[–] jennbeez1 13 years ago

You are assuming that Von Scherbach will hold onto his Commandant position after letting Dunbar and Sefton escape from under his nose. Wilder wants you to assume that the Nazi High Command would boot Von Scherbach to an even worse post since he has shown himself unfit to "wet-nurse a bunch of prisoners."

I see what you mean about the realism: The movie had all the trappings of Hollywood going for it. If it were more real, it wouldn't have been as much fun. I hung on every word of the actor's (Richard Erdman, Gil Stratton) commentaries, by the way. Especially Erdman, who I caught in a few other sitcom roles over the years, but clearly Stalag 17 was his finest hour.

I hope you got the disc with the documentary in the extras with interviews of WWII POWs. Their actual recollections packed a bigger punch than the movie.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

No, I assume Von Scherbach would have lost his command and faced some unpleasant consequences (though not likely execution). Even so, he'd have had plenty of time to wreak retribution on the prisoners, something he certainly would have begun the very next morning. And if he were replaced, his successor would surely have been as ruthless, if not more so, in carrying out punative measures against the POWs. So whatever happened, there is no way the POWs would have gotten away with their plan scot-free.

But I agree with you, it's the movie's unreality (or concessions to Hollywood) that make it fun. There are so many plot holes and lapses of logic here -- which only mount as you go into them further -- that the film's attempts at reality grow ever less convincing. As I've said elsewhere, it's a tribute to Billy Wilder's talents that he can have so many glaring inconsistencies in this film yet get away with it. It's a wonderful movie...just don't think too much about it!

I haven't listened to the commentary -- I usually don't, as most commentaries I've heard I've found loaded with inaccuracies, inane comments and just plain drivel. But after reading your post, I will make sure to listen to the POWs' remarks in the extras. That sounds worth while. Thanks!

[–] jennbeez1 13 years ago

"I haven't listened to the commentary -- I usually don't, as most commentaries I've heard I've found loaded with inaccuracies, inane comments and just plain drivel. But after reading your post, I will make sure to listen to the POWs' remarks in the extras."

People who are more about the history than the entertainment will enjoy the POWs insights, clearly this includes you :)

Stalag 17 may have its weak points on logic, but look at Hogan's Heroes. On second thought, don't. Horrible show, but I recently learned that the guy who played LeBeau was actually a Holocaust survivor. Werner Klemperer (hope I spelled it right, but he played Klink) had an agreement in his contract that if his character ever "won" a contest with the POWs, that he could resign without penalty. I thought that was an interesting piece of trivia, but the show still stunk.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Well, I don't think anyone ever inferred that there was supposed to be even a hint of logic or reality to Hogan's Heroes: in contrast to that, Stalag 17 (of which HH was clearly a satire) was a grim documentary of impeccable authenticity.

I actually kind of liked Hogan's Heroes, though I was a kid at the time...though I do remember seeing Rod Serling criticizing it on TV back then, asking incredulously, "I mean, funny Nazis?" But not only was "LeBeau" (Robert Clary) Jewish and a survivor of the camps, Werner Klemperer (you got it right) was a Jewish refugee from Germany as well: his father was the renowned conductor Otto Klemperer, who fled with his family to escape Hitler. John Banner (Sgt. Schultz) was also a refugee from the Nazis. These guys agreed to be in this program because it lampooned the Nazis; I seriously doubt they would have had anything to do with it had they felt uncomfortable portraying such people.

Interestingly, in 1961, Klemperer starred in a low-budget film called Operation Eichmann, about the Israelis' efforts to track down and kidnap Adolf Eichmann (Klemperer) from Argentina for trial in Israel for his war crimes. I remember a scene in that film where he and the Kommandant of a death camp watch in gleeful satisfaction as scores of inmates are killed in the gas chambers, after which they're shown having a pleasant dinner with the Kommandant's family, laughing and joking about what they had seen. That other officer was played by -- John Banner! Kind of horrifyingly fascinating to see the two future Hogan's Heroes dimbulb Nazis portraying murderous, psychotic Nazi animals just four years earlier. (Also in '61 Klemperer played a defiant, unrepentant Nazi racist on trial in Judgment at Nuremberg.)

I think I'm about equal parts history and film buff, so the 17 commentary will interest me on both counts!

[–] jennbeez1 12 years ago

"I think I'm about equal parts history and film buff, so the 17 commentary will interest me on both counts!"

Care to review that commentary? :) I admit to watching S-17 over and over again. It's right up there with Treasure of the Sierre Madre, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, and a few other old favs.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Hi jennbeez1, and after a year I'm ashamed to say I've still never gotten around to listening to the commentary. But now that you remind me, I will make a point of doing so as soon as I can.

Yes, I would love to write something about it, on a new thread, and discuss it with you. Give me a little while and I'll see what I can do.

Good to talk with you again, and I promise to get to the commentary. (PS: We're talking about the DVD edition of the film shown on the main page of this site, I assume? That seems to be the most comprehensive disc of the movie yet put out.)